Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Victim C is the actual representative director of E (ju) who is a D hotel construction executor, and the defendant is the head of the sales headquarters as a franchise sales consultant.

On November 2017, the Defendant partly revised the facts charged to the extent that it does not disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense, such as “C is a person who did not pay the sales agency fees at any other place” in the office of sales counselor G, etc. in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and the second floor sales agent, and “C is a person who was suffering from fraud in Ulsan-do.” In this regard, the Defendant partly revised the facts charged to the extent that it does not disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense.

It stated false facts.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. The statements made by witnesses I and G in the fifth trial records;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

1. Relevant Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not state the words as stated in the facts charged in this case at the time stated in the instant facts charged, and even if not, the Defendant’s defendant and his defense counsel stated in the instant facts charged, they claim to the effect that the illegality of the act for the public interest would be avoided. Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant stated false facts to G, etc. within the seller’s office, and that the Defendant had been aware of such false facts at least. Furthermore, Article 310 of the Criminal Act of the Act on the Elimination of Illegality does not apply to the act constituting defamation by publicly alleging false facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4786, Jul. 9, 2015).